In 2023, opioids cause an estimated 79,000 deaths. Alcohol caused an estimated 178,000.

[Girard442]

Funny, we're not declaring war on liquor stores and distilleries.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. We Did That

It was a dismal failure.
The opioid lockdown will likely be viewed the same way 50 years from now given the harm it did to real pain patients & the criminality of the supply side. Just like the 1920s.

[cally]

7. I'm always wondering about this conclusion

because I believe Prohibition had some benefits. Women organized and were successful which contributed to women’s suffrage. Also, drawing attention to hazards of alcohol and bringing attention to needs of family and women at home are important. I do know that many lost jobs, led to increased illegal sales and hazardous alcohol, and targeting of immigrant communities and social gatherings. Rich people continued to drink.

In retrospect, the prohibition of alcohol was not the best policy but is very similar to what we do now with prohibiting various drugs. I worked in prevention for drugs and alcohol for a while, and making drugs and alcohol less available does lead to reduction of use. Like, limiting where bars are located, preventing sales at schools and children’s events, even putting alcohol in a different location from the primary activities at parties will reduce consumption. Putting water on table instead of the wine bottle reduces consumption.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. You're Talking Regulation

I'm all for that. Punitive measures like banning rarely work.
We had the "war on drugs" for decades. Achieved almost nothing but create an entire set of expensive departments.
The concern over opioid use led to similar punitive measures that have tied the hands of doctors trying to help people truly in pain.
Again, I'm all for good regulation, but we went too far in prohibition & we've gone too far on pain killers.
Geez, half the states have fully legalized pot. But, people used to go to jail for possession, or at least lose their livelihoods. But, pot is tightly regulated and hasn't caused legions of stoners burdening society.
As to prohibition being linked to women's suffrage, I think that's tenuous at best.
I think that would have happened with or without prohibition. In fact, women did not yet have the right to vote to pass the 18th amendment, and the 19th went into effect only 8 months later.
The movement toward women's suffrage was on full roll for a few years before prohibition got voted in to place.

[RandomNumbers]

12. True, BUT

I have NO idea why it is necessary to make the damned stuff (alcohol) so readily available. It was fine when it was in state stores. Now (in my state) it is in every freaking grocery store and in some stores you can't go into the store without passing the booze section.

Similar to gambling, and possibly cannabis. It's one thing to not criminalize people who do it. It's a whole other thing to give a bright green light - and maybe subsidies - to any evil fuck who wants to make bucks exploiting people's addictions.

Meanwhile to your point about medications, reasonable precautions are fine, but making it so doctors are afraid to prescribe, is not.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. There Were Never State Stores Here In Illinois

It wasn't until, as a kid with my parents, I had ever heard of such a thing.
And the data show illinois in the middle of the pack for alcohol consumption per capita.
While I get your point, I don't think availability correlates directly to abuse.

[dsc]

16. It was actually a mixed bag

alcohol consumption plummeted and frankly never recovered to the pre prohibition levels on a per capita basis. But that was at a cost of exploding organized crime and deadlier consequences for those who did drink.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Never Believed That

Those numbers were promoted by those who pushed prohibition and with no way to track sales (with everything underground) I can't trust any data from that period.
What we know for sure is that it turned criminals into billionaires. Don't see the upside in that.

[Tribetime]

2. That's because his base gets drunk on Sunday.Watching football

Not that I haven't done it myself in the past

[Oeditpus Rex]

3. What, and lose all that tax revenue?

Same with tobacco, and strange with both. You'd think the health-care costs would add up to more than the taxes.

Of course, there's also the Prohibition effect. Make something commonly used illegal and you create a black market for it, which means more crime.

[samplegirl]

4. And now get rid of

Narcan completely!

[sop]

5. 48,000 Fentanyl-involved overdose deaths in 2024, a 25% drop from the previous year.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. A war on carbohydrates I could understand

but 2/3 of supermarkets are dedicated to selling carbs in one form or another.

If pure food did play out, there would be consequences. A clear thinking public would be more difficult to control and lie to.

So changing anything is a can of worms.

[mopinko]

8. we tried a soda tax in cook co.

it was deeply unpopular and repealed pretty quickly. i was all for it. 1 big impact was that retailers had to rearrange their coolers to put healthy drinks in better position. that was undone.
it still didnt cover the cost to the county of treating diabetics. but it helped.

we’re a nation of cry babies now. we dont want to pay for the consequences of our own behavior.

[xmas74]

9. I'm originally from Wisconsin and Prohibition didn't work.

Our history of having fish fry every Friday was not only because of the Catholics in the state but also because of Prohibition. We used the beer in the batter and stated it was for "religious purposes", which they couldn't touch. They also used to open up the beer, pour a small splash into the batter and serve the rest to the customer. Fish fry is still extremely popular to this day in Wisconsin and it's not uncommon to have entire families head to a local bar or KoC on Friday for fried fish and beer.

In other words, you could bring back Prohibition and the people would once again find a way.

[RandomNumbers]

14. SOME people would find a way. Possibly many.

I don't support full on Prohibition, anyway. I just don't think it should be shoved in everyone's faces the way it is now, where I live. (btw I think the online gambling racket is far worse).

People who want to drink badly enough, will find a way, no doubt. And people who can objectively afford to drink, can get their ass to a state store to buy it. Thing is, when you put it in front of EVERYBODY, that includes people who shouldn't drink and maybe are trying hard not to, but are not wise enough or strong enough to overcome the temptation when it is shoved in their face. People who do this are basically giving drugs to an addict and then blaming the addict for slipping. (and yes, sometimes the addict will get their ass to the state store too ... but they will have had to overcome more of a barrier. Barriers help and sometimes work, if not always.)

[BeerBarrelPolka]

11. Way, way more people drink

than do opioids. So do a death percentage to get a fair comparison.

[flvegan]

13. Heart disease caused 680,000 or so

according to the internets.

Funny, we're not declaring war on shitty diets and sitting on one's ass watching Tik Toks either.

This is fun!